So after all that huffing and puffing…

So after all that huffing and puffing…

First published in Wain's World Salisbury Journal: Photograph of the Author by

The leaders of Salisbury Vision backed away from a confrontation.

Minutes into Monday’s public meeting, we learned that SV had asked the area board to decide what to do about the Market Place, which is about the first sensible idea they’d had. Moments later it was agreed to withdraw the current planning application.

So we now have a blank sheet, and more time to consider what we really, really want.

Some of the interventions from the floor seemed a bit pointless, especially the rather patronising suggestion that while a show of hands was “fun” it was statistically meaningless in the context of a population of 41k. If the hundred or so concerned citizens putting up their hands were a tiny proportion of the general public, how many decimal places had those who’d tried to impose the Vision plan rate?

It wasn’t clear how we were expected to respond to a parish councillor’s impassioned remarks about having inherited something that everyone had agreed, and a rejection delaying progress “by decades”.

My own reaction was: so what? Money’s tight and getting tighter, and blowing cash on an unnecessary tarting-up exercise (which could perfectly well be postponed for two or three years) seems to me to be totally unnecessary.

The most important decisions were the overwhelming votes in favour of a two-square design (keeping the trees separating the Guildhall square from the market square), and to leave the war memorial untouched. If repeated in the Wiltshire Council survey, those decisions will mean going back to the drawing-board.

Presumably SV will also ponder the lessons to be learned from this whole sorry episode.

First among those is the need to consult properly. Consultation doesn’t mean sending out postcards or newsletters or asking a few business people what they think. It means using the combined power of the Journal and Spire FM to hold a proper public debate.

The next battle will be over SV’s Central Car Park proposals – which currently involve replacing car-parking space with housing and supermarkets.

Personally I’d prefer to see some of that land used to provide the 100-bedroom hotel we so desperately need. Others will disagree, and there’s a lot to be said on both sides.

But this time, please, please can we have a proper democratic debate, and not yet another attempt by those who think they know better to impose their own preferred solution?

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:24am Wed 12 Oct 11

rantone says...

Pleased you attended on Monday. The Vision Board made their statement on the 7th Oct.
Q. Who will choose the committee?
Q. Who will play the ' Eric Pickles' role and decide the way forward?
Q. Does the Area Board have time to take this on and have they not now stated their position publically?
I am not against elected members changing sides, but when following a well organised campaign does smell a little of opportunism! A new hotel would benefit the City, the Bourne Hill site could have been considered, but no our 'elected' representatives went for council offices! The city does require a lift and this will involve a compromise from Market Traders , the business community and the precept payers who reside in the Parish of Salisbury. Perhaps they should have two votes like the elected councillors!See you at the next Richard Clewer road show.
Pleased you attended on Monday. The Vision Board made their statement on the 7th Oct. Q. Who will choose the committee? Q. Who will play the ' Eric Pickles' role and decide the way forward? Q. Does the Area Board have time to take this on and have they not now stated their position publically? I am not against elected members changing sides, but when following a well organised campaign does smell a little of opportunism! A new hotel would benefit the City, the Bourne Hill site could have been considered, but no our 'elected' representatives went for council offices! The city does require a lift and this will involve a compromise from Market Traders , the business community and the precept payers who reside in the Parish of Salisbury. Perhaps they should have two votes like the elected councillors!See you at the next Richard Clewer road show. rantone
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Thu 13 Oct 11

Alastair Lack says...

We perhaps need to remind ourselves of the results of the public survey carried out by the Vision when it started. % in favour of:-
Redesigning Southampton Road 70%
New public transport interchange 63%
Improve market place 54%
Pedestrian friendly city centre 52%
Redevelop Churchfields 49%
Create Fisherton Square 40%
Redevelopment central car park 38%
Redevelop Friary estate 31%
Salisbury College to bus depot 28%
Salt Lane/Brown Street residential 26%
Enhance the Chequers 25%

So there is certainly no public mandate for redeveloping the Central Car Park, let alone selling off the Salt Lane/Brown St car parks. I simply cannot see how the City Centre management & Vision expect us to get to their central shops without somewhere to park. Park & Ride? Not likely for a quick visit, and not possible for dinner.
We perhaps need to remind ourselves of the results of the public survey carried out by the Vision when it started. % in favour of:- Redesigning Southampton Road 70% New public transport interchange 63% Improve market place 54% Pedestrian friendly city centre 52% Redevelop Churchfields 49% Create Fisherton Square 40% Redevelopment central car park 38% Redevelop Friary estate 31% Salisbury College to bus depot 28% Salt Lane/Brown Street residential 26% Enhance the Chequers 25% So there is certainly no public mandate for redeveloping the Central Car Park, let alone selling off the Salt Lane/Brown St car parks. I simply cannot see how the City Centre management & Vision expect us to get to their central shops without somewhere to park. Park & Ride? Not likely for a quick visit, and not possible for dinner. Alastair Lack
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Local Businesses

Authors

Recent Entries

August 2014
S M T W T F S
30 31 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 01 02

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree